Nill Toulme wrote:
That's been my plan all along. ;-)
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
You're missing all the fun. Shooting the mkIII has become an adventure, a new discovery everytime I plug the card into my card reader - will there be any sharp ones. (of course I'm not shooting anything that matters!)
I did a series of shots last night using al servo mode with burst of 10-20 shots and all of them were right on, so I am a happy camper now. I changed my settings to the one that was recommended on. http://www.andybiggs.com/blog/
I used the canon 85 f1.8 lens at f/4 and used AV mode. ISO 400.My little model ran and jumped and twirled forward, backward and across..all keepers!
I know this wasn't a high tech test, but I am happy with it and ,for me, this settles the AF issues for my use.
Your 'Little girl with umbrella' shot is one of the most precious child images I've seen in a long time in my 75 years. Your new Mk3 certainly did its job on that one!
I am also a 'happy camper' with my copy of the Mk3. Among other things, your shot of the girl and my results at very high ISO are mind-blowing for low-noise and Dmax resolution.
You also support my position that the EF 85 f/1.8 is one of the biggest bang-for-the-buck pieces ever to come out of the Canon glassworks!
Very nice shot of your girl. Thanks for Pepito for posting the link for the Mark3 settings from Canon by Ron G. They were spelled out in simple English and very understandable. Thanks
Thank you Don! Yes, this little girl is Cassa Marie, my neighbor and favorite 'model' she just shines in front of a camera! Much appreciation for your post , and yes, the 85 f/1.8 is a keeper as well!
susi wrote:
I did a series of shots last night using al servo mode with burst of 10-20 shots and all of them were right on, so I am a happy camper now. I changed my settings to the one that was recommended on. http://www.andybiggs.com/blog/
I used the canon 85 f1.8 lens at f/4 and used AV mode. ISO 400.My little model ran and jumped and twirled forward, backward and across..all keepers!
I know this wasn't a high tech test, but I am happy with it and ,for me, this settles the AF issues for my use.
Susi,
I am looking at your photo of the young girl with umbrella on two monitors: my iMac 20" and my Sony Vaio 17" laptop - on both screens this photo looks not just "soft" but also out of focus (especially on my iMac). I have been testing my Mk III all morning with a 70-200, 100-400 and a 500 f/4 L and have suddenly found that I am getting very erratic focus issues (in both static one-shot and mobile Al Servo modes). I have taken good shots with the Mk III (mainly static birds and BIF) but now find that my 400D/Digital Rebel is giving better IQ with all my lenses.
The subject and composition of your photo are good, but the IQ is not. Where was your focus point, because the umbrella and the girl's face and arms are way out of focus on my monitors. The sharpest focus I can see is the hem of her frock at her left leg. Did you have the AF Assist points enabled (C.Fn. III-8) ? I would have thought that an aperture of f/4 was too large for this size of subject, giving a very shallow DOF.
I can't tell anything from looking at the web sized shot Susi posted, is there a full size posted somewhere?
I agree that mkIII shots at that size can fool you. They look OK at that size but at 100% they are sometimes a bit oof when the AF wasn't spot on. That doesn't mean the image is no good just not all the cam is capable of. I know it's pixel peeping but does have validity given the AF issues we are all discussing.
Has anyone been able to tell if the first couple of models shipped with S/N's in the 50 and 51 range, if there is better performance with the newest to arrive with serial numbers starting in 52?
jbfaulconer wrote:
Has anyone been able to tell if the first couple of models shipped with S/N's in the 50 and 51 range, if there is better performance with the newest to arrive with serial numbers starting in 52?
One thing has nothing to do with the next!! Had a Mark-3 in the 52#s sent it back two weeks later I recieved 2 Mark-3s five days appart one from the West Coast and one from the East Coast both cameras had Ser#s in the 51s so you really cannot go by that and both cameras I have work fine!!
In defense of the shot I posted of the little girl, and colins statement that her face is completelly out of focus , I do not see this at all. She was spinning around while twirling the umbrella hence the softness of the umbrella, but I see no focus problems with the rest of her body and found all the shots to be in focus and sharp, saving for the web does jeopardize the IQ I would think. Anyway, just wanted to post my findings and I am happy with the camera and the IQ it produces.
susi wrote:
In defense of the shot I posted of the little girl, and colins statement that her face is completelly out of focus , I do not see this at all. She was spinning around while twirling the umbrella hence the softness of the umbrella, but I see no focus problems with the rest of her body and found all the shots to be in focus and sharp, saving for the web does jeopardize the IQ I would think. Anyway, just wanted to post my findings and I am happy with the camera and the IQ it produces.
I don't think you need to defend it either as it looked good to me. As I said I'm not sure how one can tell anything about fine focus by looking at the shot at that size, grossly misfocused yes, but obviously that shot isn't. when I look at some of my stuff at 100% I can sometimes see where the mkIII just nailed it and some where it's just a bit off that would be hard to see at that size.
okay, I got an e-mail to post another from the same shoot, so here is another
..duck ..
In this one she was running towards me , twirling around, so I am happy with the focus..but go ahead and fire away , I can take it
susi wrote:
In defense of the shot I posted of the little girl, and colins statement that her face is completelly out of focus , I do not see this at all. She was spinning around while twirling the umbrella hence the softness of the umbrella, but I see no focus problems with the rest of her body and found all the shots to be in focus and sharp, saving for the web does jeopardize the IQ I would think. Anyway, just wanted to post my findings and I am happy with the camera and the IQ it produces.
Hello susi,
Please don't take this as a major criticism or personal affront - I am as concerned as a lot of "early adopters" (horrible term!) about what is going on with this camera. I just thought that the shot which seemed to please you, and justify your purchase, would not have pleased me. Others seem to agree - that is not a pin sharp shot which this camera should produce. (would still like more info on settings and to see an original file straight from the camera).
I had a very frustrating morning testing my Mk III with all my lenses, and got some absolute rubbish. I have been "tweaking" CFs since I got the camera and initially was keeping notes on settings and results, but have to admit I gave up on that. At lunchtime I re-set all camera settings as well as Custom Functions and started again from scratch - suddenly, BINGO, my 100-400 was producing sweet shots of subjects (plants and other inanimate items in my garden) which were totally unacceptable a couple of hours earlier!!!
This is a very complex piece of kit, and no mistake. I think that some of the CFs and camera settings are interacting in a bad way.
Not quite as suicidal as I was at 11.00 am (local time), and pleased that my 100-400 zoom (only a few days old) is now "cutting the mustard". Tomorrow I will again try the 500 f/4 + 1.4 TC, my favorite "birding" set-up-
Well, I guess I am a lot easier to please..but make no mistake, I am still a professional and expect Professional results. As i stated, I am a happy camper and love this camera, if I am a blind fool in ignorant bliss , then so be it!!
( I am jesting and I am not taking any of this personal, been doing these forums long enough to know better)
. (of course I'm not shooting anything that matters!)
